STANDARD VACUUM BEFINING CO OF INDIA LIMITED Vs. THEIR WORKMEP
LAWS(SC)-1960-4-39
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on April 06,1960

STANDARD VACUUM REFINING COMPANY OF INDIA Appellant
VERSUS
THEIR WORKMEP Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

VEGOILS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. WORKMEN [LAWS(SC)-1971-9-66] [REFERRED 1960 3 SCR 466 : : (1961) 1 SCJ 84]
MANAGEMENT OF HINDUSTAN LEVER LIMITED VS. ADMINISTRATOR OF DELHI ADMINISTRATION [LAWS(DLH)-1976-12-12] [REFERRED GEORGE HUDSON LIMITED V. THE AUSTRALIAN TIMBER WORKERS' UNION,32 COMMONWEALTH LAW REPORTS,P]
DELHI MULTI STORYED BUILDING EMPLOYEES CONGRESS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1997-9-66] [REFERRED]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS. GAURI SHANKAR [LAWS(DLH)-1999-8-9] [REFERRED]
DEO SUNDER JHA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2000-3-76] [REFERRED]
SUBHASH CHAND VS. P K JAIN [LAWS(DLH)-2002-8-179] [REFERRED 3.]
RAM SINGH VS. P K JAIN [LAWS(DLH)-2002-8-223] [REFERRED]
CHANDERMANI VS. P K JAIN [LAWS(DLH)-2002-8-159] [REFERRED]
ELGIN MILLS CO LTD VS. DEPUTY LABOUR COMMISSIONER [LAWS(ALL)-1999-3-32] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLESH RAI VS. PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT [LAWS(ALL)-2003-4-233] [REFERRED TO]
WIMCO LIMITED VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-1995-9-13] [REFERRED TO]
POLA SATYANARAYANA VS. SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-2000-6-36] [REFERRED TO]
SWATANTRA PRIVATE SECURITY SIBBANDI SANGHAM VS. REGIONAL MANAGER GLOBE DETECTIVE AGENCY [LAWS(APH)-2002-11-47] [REFERRED TO]
BHATKAWA TEA CO LTD VS. HEM RANJAN DEB [LAWS(CAL)-1961-1-5] [REFERRED TO]
VELLANIKKARA AND THATTIL RUBBER ESTATES VS. ITS WORKMAN [LAWS(KER)-1960-11-1] [REFERRED TO]
TRAVANCORE RUBBER WORKS EMPLOYEES UNION VS. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL [LAWS(KER)-1961-7-51] [REFERRED TO]
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD VS. CONTRACT WORKERS UNION STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LTD [LAWS(KAR)-1991-9-43] [REFERRED TO]
NATIONAL IRON AND STEEL CO LIMITED VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(SC)-1967-1-13] [REFERRED]
GUJARAT ELECTRICITY BOARD THERMAL POWER STATION UKAI GUJARAT VS. HIND MAZDOOR SABHA [LAWS(SC)-1995-5-30] [REFERRED TO]
WORKMEN VS. GREAVES COTTON AND COMPANY LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-1971-8-79] [REFERRED TO]
SANKAR MUKHERJEE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1989-11-54] [REFERRED TO]
DENANATH VS. NATIONAL FERTILISERS LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-1991-11-64] [RELIED ON]
CATERING CLEANERS OF SOUTHERN RAILWAY K RAMAKRISHNAN K D MOHANAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1987-2-136] [FOLLOWED]
AIR INDIA STATUTORY CORPORATION VS. UNITED LABOUR UNION [LAWS(SC)-1996-12-80] [CONSIDERED : AIR 1960 SC 948 : 1960 2 LLJ 233]
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED VS. MUMBAI SHRAMIK SANGHA [LAWS(SC)-1998-1-118] [REFERRED TO]
Fakir Lohar VS. Food Corporation of India [LAWS(CAL)-1993-8-43] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD VS. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION MAINTENANCE CONTRACTORS WORKERS UNION [LAWS(CAL)-2000-5-11] [REFERRED TO]
KARNATAKA C L and T CO OP SOCY LTD VS. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA MADRAS [LAWS(KAR)-1993-12-2] [REFERRED TO]
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY WORKERS FEDERATION VS. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD [LAWS(KER)-1982-11-23] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGEMENT OF THE INDIAN BANK VS. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CENTRAL GOVERNMENT [LAWS(MAD)-1977-2-37] [REFERRED TO]
STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED VS. NATIONAL UNION WATER FRONT WORKERS [LAWS(SC)-2001-8-59] [REFERRED]
PATEL PRAVINKUMAR SOMNATTH VS. GUJARAT STATE LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(GJH)-1992-3-40] [FOLLOWED]
GUJARAT WORKING CLASS UNION BHARUCH VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1994-4-38] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN FARMERS FERTILISER COOPERATIVE LTD VS. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL [LAWS(ALL)-1991-5-34] [REFERRED TO]
ANDHRA PRADESH CHEMICALS AND FERTILISERS MAZDOOR SABHA VS. HYDERABAD CHEMICALS AND FERTILISERS LTD [LAWS(APH)-1973-3-4] [REFERRED TO]
ANDHRA BANK LIMITED VS. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL [LAWS(APH)-1975-12-37] [REFERRED TO]
TATA REFRACTORIES LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA UOI [LAWS(ORI)-1991-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
GENERAL SECRETARY COMMERCIAL EMPLOYEES VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMILNADU [LAWS(MAD)-1990-3-8] [REFERRED TO]
PAPER PRODUCTS LTD VS. K R POWAR [LAWS(BOM)-1970-9-9] [REFERRED TO]
TRANSFORMERS AND ELECTRICALS KERALA LTD VS. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ALAPUZHA [LAWS(KER)-2002-2-52] [REFERRED TO]
AIR INDIA VS. UNITED LABOUR UNION [LAWS(BOM)-1992-4-24] [REFERRED TO]
LALBAVTA HOTEL AND BAKERY MAZDOOR UNION VS. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED [LAWS(BOM)-1992-11-3] [REFERRED TO]
MINVARIA OPPANDA THOZHILALAR SANGAM VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2000-2-33] [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN AIRPORTS EMPLOYEES UNION VS. AIR INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-1996-3-77] [REFERRED TO]
MUMBAI SHRAMIK SANGH VS. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(BOM)-1997-1-76] [REFERRED TO]
Madras Metropolitan Sewerage Board Employees Progressive Union VS. Madras Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board [LAWS(MAD)-2002-8-171] [REFERRED TO]
MUKAND LTD VS. MUKAND STAFF AND OFFICERS ASSOCIATION [LAWS(BOM)-1999-11-18] [REFERRED TO]
MODISTONE LIMITED VS. MODISTONE EMPLOYEES UNION [LAWS(BOM)-2001-3-51] [REFERRED TO]
SANMINA SCI THOZHILALAR SANGAM VS. COMMISSIONER OF LABOUR [LAWS(MAD)-2011-6-8] [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN MACHINE TOOLS LTD VS. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL [LAWS(RAJ)-1993-1-26] [REFERRED TO]
SHIBU METAL WORKS VS. THEIR WORKMEN [LAWS(SC)-1965-10-49] [REFERRED TO]
DHARANGADHRA CHEMICAL WORKS KAMDAR SANG VS. DHRANGADHRA CHEMICAL WORKS, LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-1966-2-35] [REFERRED TO]
VOLTAS LIMITED VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2013-7-216] [REFERRED TO[PARA 14(B)]]
AKHIL BHARTIYA RAILWAY MAL GODAM MAZDOOR KALYAN SANSTHA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2014-7-12] [REFERRED TO]
SH. SACHIDANAND SHARMA S/O. SH. GIRDHARI LAL SHARMA VS. SH. P.K. JAIN AND ORS., PRESIDING OFFICER, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2002-8-294] [REFERRED TO]
BOMBAY PORT AND DOCK EMPLOYEES UNION VS. MEHER (M.R.) [LAWS(BOM)-1965-8-14] [REFERRED TO]
BHARTIYA KHADYA NIGAM COOPERATIVE L AND C SOCIETY LIMITED VS. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2000-2-108] [REFERRED TO]
RIVER STEAM NAVIGATION CO. LTD. AND ANR. VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-1962-11-1] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDAN THAKUR VS. IISCO STEEL PLANT AND ORS. [LAWS(CAL)-2008-4-117] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. SHRIRAM BEARINGS LTD. VS. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AND OTHERS [LAWS(PAT)-1987-8-35] [REFERRED TO]
WORKMAN OF BEST AND CROMPTON INDUSTRIES, LTD. (BY GENERAL SECRETARY, SOCIALIST WORKS UNION, MADRAS) VS. BEST AND CROMPTON ENGINEERING LTD. AND OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-1984-11-46] [REFERRED TO]
M/S JCB INDIA LIMITED VS. OMI SINGH AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2015-10-291] [REFERRED TO]
LALBAVTA HOTEL & BAKERY MAZDOOR UNION VS. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD [LAWS(BOM)-1992-12-54] [REFERRED]
CONTRACT LAGHU UDYOG KAMGAR UNION VS. K K DESAI [LAWS(BOM)-1994-6-92] [REFERRED]
HINDUSTAN NEWSPRINT LTD. VS. HNL CASUAL AND CONTRACT WORKERS CENTRE AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2015-12-368] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI MULTI-STOREYED BUILDING EMPLOYEES CONGRESS VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1997-9-123] [REFERRED]
BASANT LAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2007-9-177] [REFERRED]
GENERAL SECRETARY HINDUSTAN LATEX LTD VS. GENERAL MANAGER HINDUSTAN LATEX LTD [LAWS(KAR)-2018-9-85] [REFERRED TO]
E.O.J.V.V.N.LTD. VS. LAL SINGH [LAWS(RAJ)-2019-10-33] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Wanchoo, J. - (1.)This is an appeal by special leave in an industrial mater. The appellant is the Standard Vacuum Refining Company of India Limited (hereinafter called the company). A dispute was raised by the workmen of the company (hereinafter called the respondents) with respect to contract labour employed by the company for cleaning maintenance of the refinery; (plant and premises) belonging to the company. The system in force in the company is that this work is given to contractors for a period of one year from October 1, to September 30. At the time when the reference was made the contract was with Ramji Gordhan and Company for the period from October 1, 1957 to September 30, 1958. On April 27, 1957, the respondents made a demand for abolition of the contract system that prevailed in the company and for absorbing the workmen employed through the contractors into the regular service of the company with retrospective effect from the date of their employment in the company through the contractors. The case of the respondents was that the contractor used to change sometimes from year to year with the result that the workmen employed by the previous contractor were thrown out of employment. As an instance, it as said that previous to October 1, 1957, the contract was with Gowri Construction Company. That company employed 67 workmen to do the work. But when the contract was given to Ramji Gordhan and Company, all these 67 workmen were thrown out of employment, though 40 of them were subsequently re-employed as fresh employees by Ramji Gordhan and Company. The result of the system therefore was that there was no security of service to the workmen who were in effect doing the work of the company. Besides the contractors were paying much less to the workmen than the amount paid by the company to its unskilled regular workmen. Further the workmen of the contractors were not entitled to other benefits and amenities such as provident fund gratuity, bonus, privilege leave, medical facilities and subsidized food and housing to which the regular workmen of the company were entitled. The work was of a permanent nature, but the contract system was introduced to deny the workmen the rights and benefits which the company gave to its own workmen.
(2.)The dispute was taken to the conciliation officer. When conciliation failed, the Government of Bombay made the following reference on May 13, 1958:
"The contract system for cleaning the premises and plant should be abolished and workers working in the refinery through the Ramji Gordhan and Company should be treated as workers of the Standard -Vacuum Refining Company of India Limited, Bombay and wage-scales, conditions of service, etc., that are applicable to the workers of the refinery be made applicable to them. Past service of these workers should be counted and they should be treated as continuously in the service of the STANVAC refinery from the date of their entertainment."

(3.)The company resisted the claim and raised two main contentions. In the first place it was contended that the reference under S. 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, No. 14 of 1947, (hereinafter called the Act) was incompetent. In the second place it was contended that the work done by the contractor's workmen was not germane to the manufacturing process and was therefore entrusted to the contractor. If the workmen of the contractor were not satisfied with the conditions of service they could take up the matter with the contractor and the company had nothing to do with it. As to the difference between the wages and benefits and amenities of the regular workmen, it was said that the work of the two sets of workmen was very different and that in any case this was a matter between the contractor and its workmen. The contractor was an independent employer and it was incorrect to say that the real employer was the company. It was for the company to decide what was the best method of carrying on its business and the industrial tribunal should not interfere with that function of the management.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.